On 12/08/2010 14:28, Rosenwald, Jordan wrote:
True statement, but that means the senders of the other 5% are now left
in the dark as to what happened to their mail.
Is there a proposed solution to that?
Maybe we just recommend sending NDNs to people if their email is DKIMed
or if it came from a server matching SPF rules, or if the return path
uses BATV
It's better than never sending them at all, and those provisions make it
reasonably certain that the sender's email address wasn't forged.
Also, it might encourage people to put in place the anti-forgery methods.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:51 PM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: NDNs considered harmful
I note, again fwiw, that I've been trying to get various advocates
for a ban (or near-ban) on NDNs to write that separate document and
propose a specific model at regular intervals since well before
2821 was completed.
I'm new to that particular topic. Can you explain its motivation or
point me to a discussion thread that lays it out so I can get some
context?
Nothing surprising -- on today's Internet where 95% of mail is spam
and essentially all the spam has forged return addresses, no matter
how careful you are, most of your NDNs will be blowback to people who
didn't send the mail.
R's,
John